Blogging attention is elsewhere….

While I continue to maintain Fides ex auditu for posterity, my blogging energies are now being spent elsewhere.

Please visit my new personal project, The ErgoMethodist, which examines various aspects of a Wesleyan approach to workflow management. This blog is aimed primarily at theological and historical scholars, but may also be helpful for students, educators, clergy and laity alike.

In addition, I continue to participate in the Rock & Theology research project, sponsored by Liturgical Press.

I may revisit some features from Fides ex auditu, such as “The Ecumenically Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” But, for the near future, the two linked blogs above will be the focus of my public reflections.

Apostolic succession and the universal fatherhood of Abraham

Reading Barth’s Romans commentary this morning, I am struck by his reading of the faith and circumcision of Abraham and its potential relevance to the question of historical continuity in apostolic succession:

Since the heirs are what they are not through the law but of faith, not as a consequence of moral and historical status but according to grace, it follows as a matter of course that participation in their company cannot be confined to those who have been made the children of Abraham according to the law, cannot be limited to the historical Israel, or to those who accept a particular and definite historical tradition and doctrine, or to those who are members of some particular ‘movement’. Such limitation in the number of the heirs makes the inheritance itself more than insecure….By the faithfulness of God, men who move in a different moral and historical environment can be directed to revelation….The word delivered to Abraham according to grace, which he heard by faith, admits of no esoteric confinement; it is valid for all who have the form of a man. It cuts down vertically, from above, through every particular human status. Through the emergence of that status which men have in God, every human status is established by dissolution.

…

Abraham is, of course, the father of the single nation, Israel; but we have seen that, because in Christ he is the father of this one nation, he is also, at the same time and in consequence, the father of many nations. The historical framework is broken through when the secret of history is laid bare.

~ Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 139 (commenting on Rom 4.16-17).

Of course there is a certain irony in using the argument of a Reformed presbyterian like Barth in order to support a particular version of the episcopacy. But I suspect that this is among the better gifts that the Reformed tradition can offer the church universal: a reminder that–because of the primacy of grace–collegiality is universal and not just reserved for a special few. As Archbishop of York John Sentamu said to me last year, apostolic succession is not a matter of “hocus-pocus.” It is the about the transmission of orthodoxy. It is a gift, albeit one that constitutes a means to another end, a much greater gift, the gift of faith.

“The vision thing”: GTD as Methodist practice

For all the excitement that I often display regarding church polity, I must admit that I have often sensed frustration toward the lay address at Annual and General Conference. More often than not, these addresses tend to be overly optimistic, somewhat hokey, and the word “vision” is typically the primary theme: we need a “vision” for how God can use us to transform our communities and thereby the world, etc.

At first, this was how I received the presentation of the four “areas of focus” at the 2008 General Conference. I didn’t begrudge these “areas of focus” (although I preferred the original seven “pathways”), but the motivational speeches just weren’t my cup of tea. It’s an aesthetic thing, I guess, but aesthetic criticism is always necessary to get to the heart of the matter, and I’ve never really given this an honest look. But a recent read has prompted further examination….

Last weekend I finally read and implemented David Allen’s Getting Things Done. After feeling like my current approach to multitasking needed serious help, I gave my desk and PC a complete overhaul to be more effective and economical with my time and energy. So far, it’s working quite well.

Towards the end of the book, when Allen discusses his six-level model of altitudinal review, I was struck by his use of “areas of focus” in describing the 20,000-foot level. In short, he encourages his readers to periodically review their work and life from several perspectives, each with its own altitude. First, there is the runway, where one examines one’s current actions. This should be done every day. At 10,000 feet, there are current projects to review. At the very least, this should be done once per week. At 20,000 feet are all of one’s areas of responsibility, but in several places he uses the term, “areas of focus,” interchangeably. These are ten to fifteen categories of personal responsibility, e.g. family, church service, finances, and various job responsibilities (for the academic: research, teaching, professional development, administration, etc.). At 30,000 feet are one- to two-year goals; 40,000 ft: 3-5 year vision; 50,000 feet: life in general.

Whether anyone at the Connectional Table was reading GTD two years ago is beside the point. What struck me in this coincidence of terminology, however, is how GTD may actually be construed as an attempt to be a Methodist but in a religiously neutral kind of way.

From 1734 on, John Wesley kept an “exacter diary,” in which he recorded his actions according to every hour of the day. This practice of his emerged during the early student gatherings of “Methodists” at Oxford, and the term “Methodist” referred to the strict manner in which they ordered their personal lives in order to pursue holiness.

It strikes me as a matter of responsible stewardship that we should take the lives that God has granted us and make sure (with God’s grace) that we don’t waste a single minute. Thus periodically reviewing our actions from various “altitudes” is necessary, because if a particular action or project is not relevant to our “areas of focus,” it deserves reevaluation.

In short, by way of GTD, I’ve come to appreciate “the vision thing” a bit more. Of course, it’s not that I was ever against “vision” per se, but rather the way it’s typically presented. Perhaps I still need to examine why I tend to have a gut-level reaction against lay addresses. But the fact of the matter is that such talk is exactly why we confer. And we don’t need David Allen to tell us this. After all, we Methodists have been doing it since 1733.

Penderecki @ UT Faculty of Music

Last night I had the pleasure of attending a “Composer’s Forum” with Krzysztof Penderecki at the U of T’s Faculty of Music.

Although it was frequently impossible to actually hear what he was saying (despite a P.A. being in the room, there was no microphone available for him to use), what one could hear was fabulous.

One person asked why he decided to end Polymorphia on a C Major chord. His reply was that that was his first decision…and that he never composes a piece from the beginning, but always works on an idea first, then composes from the middle outwards or from the end backwards. By doing this he almost never gets “writer’s block” because he just skips forward or backward rather than struggling to find “what comes next.”

A common refrain throughout the evening was how young composers can be innovative when everything has already been done before. I loved Penderecki’s answer, as he just said how important it is to listen to the past…then he started listing all the great composers (which went on for 5-10 minutes!). He said that one doesn’t need to be new; one just needs to be good.

And to “where should music go in the future?” he promptly replied: “Whatever I write tomorrow morning!”

Indeed, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, Mr. Penderecki!

The generational gap between Thomists and Scotists

Every once in a while, you read a quote that is, well, bloggable. Such was the case today while reading the fabulous introduction to Bonnie Kent’s Virtues of the Will: the transformation of ethics in the late thirteenth century (Catholic Univ. of America Press, 1995), pp. 2-3:

“To compare the views of Scotus with the views of Aquinas is rather like comparing the views of a professor tenured last year with the views of one who died in the early 1960s. Even if the earlier professor’s teachings continue to be highly influential, the intellectual milieu has changed radically. His successor has seen the protests of ’68, the rise and fall of structuralism, the end of the war in Vietnam, the advent of deconstructionism, the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the trend toward political correctness, and other developments probably undreamed of by his older counterpart. Perhaps the pace of change was slower in the Middle Ages, but thirty year gaps should still give one pause to wonder, and worry.”

Union Presbyterian Seminary: a new name for an old school

The Clock Tower atop Watts Chapel

I find myself having to update my CV and résumés, now that the institution from which I earned both my M.Div. and Th.M. degrees has changed its name. What was once Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, having federated with the Presbyterian School of Christian Education and temporarily dubbed itself Union-PSCE, will henceforth be known as Union Presbyterian Seminary.

Like many alumni, I suspect, my verdict on the new name is still pending. I’m not a Presbyterian (with a big ‘P’, that is, as it’s rather hard to categorically oppose the office of the presbyter!), but I did choose Union for my initial theological education because I was attracted to the liberal Reformed tradition vis-à-vis Schleiermacher. So I find it helpful that President Brian Blount recently delivered a sermon that dealt with the name change, in which he defends the inclusion of “Presbyterian” thusly:

If we are as ecumenical as we have always claimed we are, here is our chance to live what we say by not running from our name but by reinvigorating what our name stands for. By how we train church leaders who are not just Presbyterian, but mostly so, by how we call faculty who are from the broad spectrum of the church, which we already do, by sending our graduates out with the knowledge of what God is doing in the world through a Reformed lens that has always been open to and engaging of other Christian perspectives, we can teach church leaders who can teach the church and the world what it has meant, does mean, and will mean to be Presbyterian. There are many in the world who don’t know. And those who do know see a church, or at least a seminary, running away from its own legacy as it apparently runs out of time. If the educational flagships of this faith armada abandon the name and therefore abandon the churches who still bear that name, then it is a time to fear for the Presbyterian church indeed.

The Union Presbyterian Seminary Quad

It seems we’re at a juncture in which each denomination is frightened of what appears to be a potential lack of a future. Anglicans, of course, are—to use the poetry of Charles Wesley – “sore oppressed with schisms rent asunder.” In the midst of its consideration of multiple restructuring proposals, the United Methodist Church finds its members asking “Why I remain a United Methodist,” under the assumption that its future is suspect. (The UM blogosphere has had a field trip on this question, which began here. Subsequent posts are too numerous to hyperlink…just google it if you’re interested.) At the juncture of these three traditions in my theological education, I too wonder what the future holds. We fear the annihilation of our traditions but we hold fast to hope in resurrection.

Similarly, President Blount:

I’ve always wanted to have Bible stuff happen to me. But the truth be told, I’ve only wanted the good stuff in the Bible to happen to me. I dread the leprosy, but I covet Jesus’ touch. I shudder at the blindness, but I glory in the suddenness of new sight. I tremble at the portraits of biblical poverty, but I long for the wealth of God’s presence walking and talking all over my countryside. I want the miracles, but I don’t want the desperate, painful, dangerous world the miracles must engage.

And that makes me think of what God can do in our world, with our name, with even “Presbyterian.” I think of Jeremiah in the 32nd chapter of his book, going to buy a field in Anathoth, a land under siege, destined to be destroyed. But his purchase was a sign of God’s faithfulness, and a sign of his participation with God in the new thing that was going to happen to this old and dying land. His purchase was a sign to his people of his trust that God was going to bring this land and this people back.

I like the first paragraph. And yet the second paragraph doesn’t quite follow. He assumes that it’s the name, “Union Theological Seminary and the Presbyterian School of Christian Education,” that is to be destroyed, but the thing itself, the “land under siege,” is what will be resurrected. But couldn’t the name “Presbyterian” be the thing destined to be destroyed? That seems to be the larger fear underlying many in the church today, that “Methodism” or “Anglicanism” or “Presbyterianism” is teetering on bankruptcy.

But perhaps—and I emphasize perhaps – God has something greater in store for all of us. Don’t get me wrong…I believe that the current ecumenical climate demands that we all emphasize the particularities of our traditions rather than whitewashing them with gross generalizations and universalist hogwash. But that doesn’t mean maintaining the status quo. As I’ve stated frequently here, I long for the day when Methodists are an order within the larger Anglican Communion or perhaps even the Roman Catholic Church, like the Benedictines or Dominicans or Jesuits, etc. But I digress.

At this point I’m fine with changing all my résumés to say “Presbyterian” (though I will include “formerly Union Theological Seminary in Virginia” when space permits!). I’m just nervous that all the crisis talk in our denominations hides the fact that we really should be looking elsewhere than inwardly. Then again, that would be all too characteristic of liberal Reformed theology vis-à-vis Schleiermacher.

Rock & Theology Blog

www.rockandtheology.com

I’m excited to report that I’m now a contributor on another blog, “Rock and Theology.” The R&T project, spearheaded by Fordham’s Tom Beaudoin and sponsored by Liturgical Press (the publishing arm of the Benedictines in the US), hopes to generate interest through the blog and perhaps launch some publications in the future. A bit of background on the project:

This “Rock and Theology” blog is the first fruit of this project. And there’s more to come. We hope the blog will be a place to ask how faith and culture constellate, how contemporary social embodiment comes to be spiritual-religious, by cycling through the cultures of rock and theology. To discover new pleasures in theology and secular music, however difficult the lessons of those pleasures for what we thought theology and rock had to be. And to test, as a blog, the virtues of the ephemeral for all of us who live engulfed by the worldly and the spiritual.

Other contributors at this point are Loye Ashton (Tougaloo) Tom Beaudoin (Fordham), Adrian Hartley (Blue Man Group), Michael Iafrate (St Michael’s College, Toronto), and Brian Robinette (Saint Louis). My first post was yesterday, and I look forward to engaging these issues further with these colleagues and others.

Benedictus benedīcet

From yesterday’s meeting with Muslim religious leaders, members of the Diplomatic Corps and Rectors of universities in Jordan in front of the mosque al-Hussein bin Talal:

…we cannot fail to be concerned that today, with increasing insistency, some maintain that religion fails in its claim to be, by nature, a builder of unity and harmony, an expression of communion between persons and with God. Indeed some assert that religion is necessarily a cause of division in our world; and so they argue that the less attention given to religion in the public sphere the better. Certainly, the contradiction of tensions and divisions between the followers of different religious traditions, sadly, cannot be denied. However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society? In the face of this situation, where the opponents of religion seek not simply to silence its voice but to replace it with their own, the need for believers to be true to their principles and beliefs is felt all the more keenly. Muslims and Christians, precisely because of the burden of our common history so often marked by misunderstanding, must today strive to be known and recognized as worshippers of God faithful to prayer, eager to uphold and live by the Almighty’s decrees, merciful and compassionate, consistent in bearing witness to all that is true and good, and ever mindful of the common origin and dignity of all human persons, who remain at the apex of God’s creative design for the world and for history.

…

Distinguished friends, today I wish to refer to a task which I have addressed on a number of occasions and which I firmly believe Christians and Muslims can embrace, particularly through our respective contributions to learning and scholarship, and public service. That task is the challenge to cultivate for the good, in the context of faith and truth, the vast potential of human reason. Christians in fact describe God, among other ways, as creative Reason, which orders and guides the world. And God endows us with the capacity to participate in his reason and thus to act in accordance with what is good. Muslims worship God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who has spoken to humanity. And as believers in the one God we know that human reason is itself God’s gift and that it soars to its highest plane when suffused with the light of God’s truth. In fact, when human reason humbly allows itself to be purified by faith, it is far from weakened; rather, it is strengthened to resist presumption and to reach beyond its own limitations. In this way, human reason is emboldened to pursue its noble purpose of serving mankind, giving expression to our deepest common aspirations and extending, rather than manipulating or confining, public debate. Thus, genuine adherence to religion – far from narrowing our minds – widens the horizon of human understanding. It protects civil society from the excesses of the unbridled ego which tend to absolutize the finite and eclipse the infinite; it ensures that freedom is exercised hand in hand with truth, and it adorns culture with insights concerning all that is true, good and beautiful.

This understanding of reason, which continually draws the human mind beyond itself in the quest for the Absolute, poses a challenge; it contains a sense of both hope and caution. Together, Christians and Muslims are impelled to seek all that is just and right. We are bound to step beyond our particular interests and to encourage others, civil servants and leaders in particular, to do likewise in order to embrace the profound satisfaction of serving the common good, even at personal cost. And we are reminded that because it is our common human dignity which gives rise to universal human rights, they hold equally for every man and woman, irrespective of his or her religious, social or ethnic group. In this regard, we must note that the right of religious freedom extends beyond the question of worship and includes the right – especially of minorities – to fair access to the employment market and other spheres of civic life.

The return of a journal

I was thrilled to see in today’s UMNS update that the Quarterly Review, a journal that ended in 2005, returned today under the title Methodist Review. Whereas the previous journal received the bulk of its funding through a joint effort of GBHEM and UMPH, its current incarnation combines the resources of Emory’s Candler School of Theology, SMU’s Perkins School of Theology, the Association of United Methodist Theological Schools and GBHEM, and with the editorial team of Ted Campbell, Russell Richey, and Rex Matthews.

Methodist Review is completely free online, requiring only a simple registration. The first issue, published on the website today, contains the following:

An Editorial Welcome to Methodist Review
Russell E. Richey, Ted A. Campbell, Rex D. Matthews

What Makes Theology “Wesleyan”?
Sarah Heaner Lancaster, Catherine Keller, Donald A. Thorsen, Dennis C. Dickerson, Charles M. Wood

The United Methodist Church at 40: Where Have We Come From?
Russell E. Richey

The United Methodist Church at 40: How Have We Done?
Woodie W. White

The United Methodist Church at 40: What Can We Hope For?
Mary Elizabeth Moore

Although as the journal has now been reduced to only one issue per year, I can only surmise that next year’s contents will consist of a series on “The UMC at 41.” With presumably a significant backlog of submissions, I figure my best bet is to prepare “The UMC at 45″ (or 50) now and perhaps it will make its way through the queue by then!

Outler on ecumenism as a means to an evangelical end

Albert C. Outler, 1908-1989

Today I read this excellent paragraph from Albert C. Outler’s That the World may Believe: a study of Christian unity (New York: Joint Commission on Education and Cultivation, Board of Missions of the Methodist Church, 1966), pp. 13-14:

If we could agree that our interest in Christian unity came from our concern for the effectiveness of the Christian mission, we could also be frank in our appraisals of the virtues and faults of the actual programs of ecumenical action that are being sponsored by our churches and by the various councils of churches—local, national, and worldwide. It is the devoted ecumenist—and not the sectarian—who should be first to disavow all those starry-eyed enthusiasts who extol unity for the sake of unity. He should also reject those impatient prophets who refuse to reckon with the practical difficulties involved. It is the ecumenist who should disclaim the label of “indifferentism” by resisting the temptation to set aside all disputed points. He should refuse to conceal, water down, or even deny his own basic convictions in the interest of some spurious consensus that will not last. It is the veteran ecumenist—not the novice and certainly not the sectarian—who should resist the lure of “bigness” and the seductions of pomp and circumstance. It is an article of his creed that the basic unit of the universal Christian community is the local community of Christians—all the Christians in each place in valid communion with each other.